« U.S. Health Care: Pay More, Get Less
How the NY Times maximizes efficiency in tough economic times »
Palin: Anatomy of the divorce rumor
The Orlando Sentinel reports on an Alaska blog’s claim that Sarah Palin is getting a divorce:
The No. 1 search term in Google right now is “sarah palin divorce.” The reason? A couple of bloggers in Alaska posted stories this morning claiming to have inside information that former Gov. Sarah Palin is divorcing her husband, Todd.The bloggers went on to claim that Sarah Palin plans to leave the state, possibly moving to Montana…
The story, naturally, is getting attention on politics blogs, but nothing has moved on the wires at this hour. This looks like one that will burn up the blogs on the Internet for a few hours but not make it into print outside the tabloids.
CBS News appears to be the only mainstream media weighing in on the issue on its news page online rather than just in a blog. This story on its politics page (and on web sites of its affiliates) adds a quote from one Palin attorney, who says the divorce story is “categorically false” and another Palin lawyer who says the rumors are “totally untrue.”
CBS News goes further to tamp down the rumor by quoting its own political director as saying that Palin often campaigned without her wedding ring. And a CBS News producer who followed Palin on the campaign trail says that the claim that the Palins weren’t talking to each other at last weekend’s picnics “appears to be untrue.” The online story, though, does not note on what basis the producer made that assessment. Was he there last weekend or is he reporting what his sources are telling him?
CBS also says Palin may make a statement herself later today.
This is one of those stories where truth will out. Either she’s getting a divorce or she isn’t. But it’s fascinating to watch how this kind of story develops now that the web ensures instant distribution, forcing the media to respond, rather than acting as gatekeepers who can determine when a story breaks.
My best guess is the story’s not true. Others, like Kathy, are taking it very seriously. Given the kind of things that get said about Sarah Palin, a fair amount of skepticism seems to be in order.
PLUS: Jonathan Martin writes, “By having her spokeswoman repeat the charges to rebut them in a public form, Palin effectively guaranteed coverage from the mainstream media that otherwise would not report claims attributed to unnamed sources on an anonymous blog.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “Palin: Anatomy of the divorce rumor”
LOL!!
Conservatives are pushing nonsense about a birth certificate.
So their complaints about media gatekeepers are impossible to swallow!
Who's degrading the public sphere?
GS- As I see it, reasonable conservatives think that both the birther conspiracy and the Palin rumormongering are absurd and degrading. Surely you aren't suggesting that two wrongs make a right?
CStanley–
There is no equivalence between the two.
The Palin rumor will be either true or false and that will be the end of it.
Media gatekeepers indeed!
That's not so at all, GS. I don't know how one could think that this will just be proven false, particularly when prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan still claim that something was amiss in the birth of Trig and he won't be persuaded otherwise until he sees the private medical records of Sarah Palin.
And as I mentioned under Kathy's thread, how does one prove the negative that one is not divorcing? At what point will papers not being filed disprove the rumor, or keep bloggers from moving the goalposts by saying “well, they're definitely having marital problems but apparently they're not actually going to divorce now even though they initially were going to split.”
Seriously, just admit this is trash tabloid blogging and move on.
CStanley–
The absence of a legally documented filing for divorce ought to do it.
PS–Sullivan considers himself a conservative, right?
I think the best conservative corollary would be the “Bill Clinton has a black love child” rumor back in the 90's. It was based largely on the National Enquirer and Drudge Report, and was finally disproved by DNA testing.
The reason it got legs is because many Clinton-loathing conservatives wanted so much for it to be true they suspended any skepticism they might otherwise have. The same feelings are driving this story although the parties are reversed.
GS: Sullivan considers himself a conservative, yes, but hardly any conservatives do (or at least virtually all of them have completely lost respect for him after he dug his heels into that story.)
And there is an absence of legally documented filing for divorce, which is why no one should be reporting as though there is. Will you at least say how long we should wait for such evidence before you'll say that a retraction and apology should be forthcoming?
I think that's a pretty good example, DaGoat, or a more recent one was the claim that there was a tape of Michelle Obama using inflammatory words about 'whitey'. That's a case where the tape either existed or it didn't, and when it didn't materialize there was no retraction or apology from the bloggers who were pushing the story. So again, I stand by my assertion that these stories shouldn't be published at all unless the evidence is already in hand and can be produced to back up the story.
CStanley–
Sigh.
A sensible conservative response was just provided by DaGoat.
Meanwhile, birthers are demanding consequences.
What are you referring to when you say that 'birthers are demanding consequences'?
And I just agreed with DaGoat but I don't see what that has to do with anything- see my response to his comment.
CStanley–
It is laudable that you have such a high standard. Am I safe in presuming it applies to all stories, not just stories about Sarah Palin?
Yes, which is why I've already given several examples of other cases where I think people were wrong to engage in this kind of rumormongering, George.
I remind everyone to re-read TMV's commenting guidelines at top of this site. Some comments are close to over the line. You can make it clear you don't like a post without going after writers. In this post David gives a summary of how this broke. You can debate whether this is a valid story or not, how the new media and old media work, news values. But comments going after writers are not welcome. People can discuss issues and posts without making it personal. I may remove one comment here.
In the end, if there is no divorce, this is a Palin Win. It will provide more fodder to her claim that she is treated unfairly by the media and that the media cannot be relied upon when reporting on her.
Those who have read previous comments know that I harbor no love for Palin politically, but she too has some right to privacy in her personal life. It should be respected.
The interesting part of this whole affair is the psychology of the people who start and propagate these rumors.
What is it with the leftist who can’t stand to see people who are more successful and happier than themselves? It seems to put them into a rage.
Look at the similarities between how liberals view economics and how they view personalities. The basis of all Democrat economic policies is that if someone is making a great deal of money, they must be taking that money away from someone else. That is to say that the wealth pie is finite and whatever someone has leaves less for the others.
The same line of thought seems to hold for success and happiness. If Sarah Palin is a good looking highly successful governor with a happy marriage, it must follow that some liberal is a lonely failure because of it.
Are we finally getting to the base difference between right and the left? Is it that when someone on the right sees success and happiness they aspire to achieve the same and when the left sees it they want to tear it down to their own sad and pathetic level?
CStanley–
I don't think this Palin story has much staying power. If she doesn't get divorced, she doesn't get divorced. If she does get divorced, the GOP ran divorced candidates for President in 1980, 1984, 1996 and 2008. And stories of marital discord didn't hurt the Clintons even when they proved to be true.
So I don't think much of the complaining about this stuff.
But there are more serious matters that would benefit from a higher level of accuracy. Do you think the higher standard should also apply to stories about, for example, the health care reforms?
>>I don't think this Palin story has much staying power. If she doesn't get divorced, she doesn't get divorced. If she does get divorced, the GOP ran divorced candidates for President in 1980, 1984, 1996 and 2008. And stories of marital discord didn't hurt the Clintons even when they proved to be true.<<
Agreed – it mostly a teapot tempest, and the only reason it is a national news story at all is because of the hypersensitive focus on anything and everything Palin over the past few months. At this point, I would guess that the majority of Americans are hoping she truly does slowly fade away into obscurity. The way the media works these days, I sincerely doubt that, but one can still hope.
The talking heads on CNN this morning brought up this whole silly rumor business in a segment, and they largely viewed it through the terms of “real news reporting” versus “blog news reporting”. No reputable news organization is running with the story, yet it is burning up the blog pages – and they pointed out how in this case it is forcing the real news organizations to follow-up with sources to shoot down the rumor because of pressure from blogs.
They also pointed out that this is August, and we're in the middle of “silly season”, when news organizations would normally turn to stuff like shark attacks and other such fluff. This falls into that category of “non-news news” intended as a light summer diversion, and hopefully we will all turn our attention to more serious matters in a few weeks when the lazy congressmen and senators return from their completely-undeserved vacations.
jwest–I see no difference. Republicans admire and seek to emulate people they see as being similar to themselves. They dismiss and denigrate the success of those who they don't think are worthy. It's just amazing how often those unworthy happen to be black or Latino or women.
GS- I do agree that stories about healthcare reform should be factual, but I don't agree that stories about people's personal lives should be held to a lower standard or that the standards should vary based on whether or not some people think the story has staying power or potential to do long term harm. Slander is slander and I don't think that other people get to judge whether or not the person will be harmed by it. In this case, claims that a couple is getting divorced doesn't seem slanderous on the face of it, but the people making the claims are also making false claims are also alleging affairs without evidence, which is more so and can be personally hurtful to anyone at whom this is aimed (not to mention the children of the couple.)
Anyway, you seem to be pressing this point for some reason and I don't know what it is. Did you ask specifically about applying the standard to the healthcare discussion because you think I've ignored untruthful reporting about it, perhaps? The only example I can think of like that from the conservative side lately was the bogus euthanasia claim, and in case I haven't adequately expressed my opinion on that I'll say that it is wrong for people to misrepresent the counseling provision in the bill that way (in fact in real life, just yesterday I encountered an older lady who believed that the bill was going to promote euthanasia and I gently corrected her on that point.)
“But there are more serious matters that would benefit from a higher level of accuracy. Do you think the higher standard should also apply to stories about, for example, the health care reforms?”
What a transparent way to attempt to legitimize slander. I'd say you'd make an excellent magician, what with the “look the other way while I pull this rabbit from underneath my cloak” and all, but you aren't even being subtle about your attempts at misdirection.
And janjanjan– the conservatives are raaaacist card? Seriously? Your creativity apparently knows no bounds.
what better way than for Palin's camp to prove everything negative that has come her way is the fault of the media. . . .remember what she said a little over a week ago when she scolded the media and told them to “quit making things up”. . . .how convenient this little rumor that she can readily show is not true?. . . .it is such a plum of showing the ; “media makes things up” i would really like to know how it got started?
or am i being a bit cynical?
I wish my posts about Iraq and Afghanistan generated this many comments!